The coming war with Iran

[Kutnupe14]

What makes it rational? How could anyone involved not see the way that situation was handled could have easily sparked a conflict. One US sailor refuses to kneel and gets shot for it and it would have been game on (assuming Obama would have cared).

Iran’s bread and butter is playing that game. They’ve bet correctly, that with the exception of Israel, no one really want to make that commitment.

 

[phylodog]

I agree 100%... they have spent decades putting politicians in key points to ensure the fox is in charge of the hen house.. the question is.. how do we stop them?

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Try to open people's eyes. That's all we can do at this point. Everyone needs to understand the consequences of what the democrats are trying to accomplish.

 

[76Too]

38,023 posts about how you’re smarter than everyone. What a waste of life.

Also, to save you from future embarrassment, you no longer need to point out that you’ve never served your country. It’s obvious to those of us that have.

 

[phylodog]

Iran’s bread and butter is playing that game. They’ve bet correctly, that with the exception of Israel, no one really want to make that commitment.

You consider that rational?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You consider that rational?

For Iran? Absolutely. It’s is small state actor that views the United States as an enemy, but lacks the strength to confront us directly, militarily. They thus resort to proxy wars, and minor level harassment. It’s worked for over FORTY years, and they haven’t been disposed since taking power from the Shah.

 

[Kutnupe14]

38,023 posts about how you’re smarter than everyone. What a waste of life.

Also, to save you from future embarrassment, you no longer need to point out that you’ve never served your country. It’s obvious to those of us that have.

It seems I’ve hurt your feelings. I apologize for trespassing on the delicate little things.

 

[OakRiver]

Might have something to do with Iranians boarding a US Ship not too long ago.

Hey, who was VP when that happened?

And who was VP when we sent Iran all that money?

And who was VP when we signed that deal with Iran that meant we had to give them time to hide anything naughty they were doing before any inspectors arrived?

 

[2A-Hoosier23]

.

What makes it rational? How could anyone involved not see the way that situation was handled could have easily sparked a conflict. One US sailor refuses to kneel and gets shot for it and it would have been game on (assuming Obama would have cared).

If that's the metric for rationality in foreign policy then how would one describe the US's assassination of Qassem Soleimani? Iran could've reacted much more aggressively to such an act. Imagine if another country killed the US's CIA director.

Or is the US government above such criticism and only the enemies of the establishment can be deemed as "irrational"?

 

[phylodog]

For Iran? Absolutely. It’s is small state actor that views the United States as an enemy, but lacks the strength to confront us directly, militarily. They thus resort to proxy wars, and minor level harassment. It’s worked for over FORTY years, and they haven’t been disposed since taking power from the Shah.

I don't consider rationality to be subjective.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

Try to open people's eyes. That's all we can do at this point. Everyone needs to understand the consequences of what the democrats are trying to accomplish.

I definitely agree educating them is a healthy portion but I fear it's not enough. By the time enough eyes have been opened, will there be any chance?

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

Iran is playing the long game of securing their political future through the development and deployment of nuclear weapons. Same game as North Korea. They both learned from watching Saddam and Gaddafi being overthrown, because they were powerless to stop an outside invasion.

 

[phylodog]

.

If that's the metric for rationality in foreign policy then how would one describe the US's assassination of Qassem Soleimani? Iran could've reacted much more aggressively to such an act. Imagine if another country killed the US's CIA director.

Or is the US government above such criticism and only the enemies of the establishment can be deemed as "irrational"?

Great example of why Iran ****ing with the greatest military power on the planet is completely irrational. They lost one of their prized terrorist leaders as a result. Libya used to do this sort of thing until we sent them a pretty clear msg and they've barely been heard from since. Iran apparently doesn't have that common sense.

 

[smittygj]

Very symbolic because Trump had moved Israel to USEUCOM previously, this was important because CENTCOM is focused on active combat operations in the Middle East where as USEUCOM is not focused on active combat operations

Correction needed here. Trump did not move Israel to USEUCOM. They have been part of USEUCOM since 1983. It was only after the Abraham Accords late last year with UAE and Bahrain normalizing relations with Israel that Trump then made the decision to move them to CENTCOM on 15 JAN 2021.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't consider rationality to be subjective.

Well in a general sense, you be right. In the realm of international relations, an irrational act is something that legitimately endangers the continued existence of the state. Smart and Rational aren’t the same things.

 

[phylodog]

I definitely agree educating them is a healthy portion but I fear it's not enough. By the time enough eyes have been opened, will there be any chance?

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

When the people they voted for blatantly turn on them you'll see some light bulbs come on. Unfortunately at that point I fear the problems won't be easily corrected.

 

[phylodog]

Well in a general sense, you be right. In the realm of international relations, an irrational act is something that legitimately endangers the continued existence of the state. Smart and Rational aren’t the same things.

Depending on who sits in the white house at the time, that sort of thing could very well result in the end of Iran. Now if we were physically attacking Iran and had them backed into a corner I could agree that they basically had few options to fight back.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Depending on who sits in the white house at the time, that sort of thing could very well result in the end of Iran. Now if we were physically attacking Iran and had them backed into a corner I could agree that they basically had few options to fight back.

Well kinda. The great powers are considered, almost always, to be rational actors weighing how their responses affect other nations in a cumulative fashion. An action taken to “end Iran,” goes well beyond simply the US and Iran. Others will certainly have a say.

 

[smittygj]

Iran just sent their Ambassador to the UN to the US with 7 preconditions to US for renewal of the nuclear deal.

First, Iran would demand that the US implement all aspects of the deal, including the full lifting of sanctions, if it wants to re-enter the accords.

Secondly, any disagreements over the accords must be discussed within the framework of the official negotiating committees. One of these anticipated disagreements is Tehran’s demand for compensation for financial losses it incurred due to the Trump administration’s exit from the deal, notably the financial impact of the sanctions.

The third condition was said to be that Tehran will not accept linkage between the nuclear deal and other issues, including its missile program and activities throughout the Middle East.

The fourth demand was reportedly that Iran will not accept any new members into the deal beyond the P5+1, including any Gulf Arab states.

Fifthly, any issues involving other regional states must be discussed separately, and not as part of the nuclear talks.

The sixth point was said to be that while Iran will not discuss its missile program, it is open to talking about regional arms control under the supervision of the United Nations and was said to be especially concerned about Israeli missiles and nuclear weapons.

Finally, Iran will not accept a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, and insists on a UN referendum of Palestinians and Jewish Israelis on “land.” There were no further details given on the content of the potential referendum.

Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-...conditions-to-us-for-renewal-of-nuclear-deal/

 

[Kutnupe14]

Iran just sent their Ambassador to the UN to the US with 7 preconditions to US for renewal of the nuclear deal.

First, Iran would demand that the US implement all aspects of the deal, including the full lifting of sanctions, if it wants to re-enter the accords.

Secondly, any disagreements over the accords must be discussed within the framework of the official negotiating committees. One of these anticipated disagreements is Tehran’s demand for compensation for financial losses it incurred due to the Trump administration’s exit from the deal, notably the financial impact of the sanctions.

The third condition was said to be that Tehran will not accept linkage between the nuclear deal and other issues, including its missile program and activities throughout the Middle East.

The fourth demand was reportedly that Iran will not accept any new members into the deal beyond the P5+1, including any Gulf Arab states.

Fifthly, any issues involving other regional states must be discussed separately, and not as part of the nuclear talks.

The sixth point was said to be that while Iran will not discuss its missile program, it is open to talking about regional arms control under the supervision of the United Nations and was said to be especially concerned about Israeli missiles and nuclear weapons.

Finally, Iran will not accept a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, and insists on a UN referendum of Palestinians and Jewish Israelis on “land.” There were no further details given on the content of the potential referendum.

Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-...conditions-to-us-for-renewal-of-nuclear-deal/

I would expect this to be rejected without reservation, by the Biden Administration.

 

[phylodog]

Well kinda. The great powers are considered, almost always, to be rational actors weighing how their responses affect other nations in a cumulative fashion. An action taken to “end Iran,” goes well beyond simply the US and Iran. Others will certainly have a say.

I don't disagree. Does Iran have strong enough allies to persuade the US not to attack them? (serious question, I have no idea who likes Iran).